Francis Leaman’s Tuesday letter pointing out the flaws in your Monday editorial discouraging confronting crime was right on target. The barista did us all a great service, it’s possible she nipped a criminal career in the bud and did the thief a great service. Was she at risk? Of course, life is full of risk, and the way to manage that risk is not to bury our heads in the sand and let the bullies take over the school yard. The only thing that will accomplish is to encourage the criminals and exacerbate the problem. What we know is that where citizens rely on themselves for protection, not the government, the crime rate declines! The editorial states, “It’s probably best to assume the bad guys do have a weapon.” Those of us who believe in the second amendment know it’s best that the bad guys have to assume the good guys have a weapon.
It is incontrovertible that where concealed carry permit rates rise, crime in that jurisdiction falls. That’s because when criminals don’t know if their next target may be armed or not they tend to migrate to a safer venue.
The premise of your editorial fails on both a local and a national level. It is never better to allow the bullies and thieves to push you around, to steal from you, to defy the law until some nebulous line in the shifting sands may be reached.
In my view.